LugerForum Discussion Forums my profile | register | faq | search
upload photo | donate | calendar

Go Back   LugerForum Discussion Forums > General Discussion Forums > Shooting and Reloading

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 04-19-2018, 04:10 PM   #1
Kyrie
User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 757
Thanks: 0
Thanked 212 Times in 101 Posts
Default

Hello Sieger,

I’m going to break your post up into sections, and re-order your questions/comments in hopes of making this more readable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sieger View Post
What is actually in the treaty concerning standardization of members' ammo, I do not know.
The short (and uninformative) answer is “nothing.” I strongly recommend you read the text of the NATO treaty. Google and find a copy yourself, or use this link :

https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/o...exts_17120.htm

The standardization agreements between NATO signatories (STANAG) are numerous and those few STANAG that speak to small arms ammunition address the storage and handling of ammunition rather than manufacture. Google ‘NATO STANAG’ and do some reading to get a flavor of this, or use this link to browse publicly available standard documents:

http://nso.nato.int/nso/nsdd/listpromulg.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sieger View Post
What does acceptable to NATO mean?
The cross in a circle in general use indicates the material so stamped is acceptable to a NATO signatory and is interchangeable with the same material accepted by other NATO signatories. A shovel is a fair example of such ‘material’.

In the context of small arms ammunition the cross in a circle is essentially meaningless. See here:

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovc...Pellegrino.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sieger View Post
Per the United States Army Technical Manual on Service Ammo, I cite above, acceptable U.S. 9mm NATO service ammo is listed as a 121 grain bullet at 1,260 fps, as shot from an M9 Service pistol. Powder and charge weights are also listed. Obviously, these standards may have changed over the years.
Respectfully, and with no offense intended, you are mistaken. There is no single bullet weight standard of US Army M882 ball ammunition. Velocity testing is never done from a service pistol; rather it is done from a pressure test barrel. I don’t know where your information came from, but it is a departure from reality.

Here are three pages from TM 43-0001-27 (small caliber ammunition data sheets) consisting of the cover page, the page detailing the characteristics of the M882 ball ammunition, and (for context) the page that details the TM’s data concerning commercial 9x19 Luger and its usage by the US Army. Page 12-5 is the one that contains the correct information for the M882 cartridge.








Quote:
Originally Posted by Sieger View Post
This is in the +P range for regular commercial ammo.
No sir, it is not.

Firstly, the term ‘+P’ is a technical term used by SAAMI (See here: http://www.saami.org/specifications_...wnload/205.pdf
) to denote ammunition intentionally manufactured with acceptable chamber pressures that exceed those allowable to non plus P ammunition. It is a chamber pressure standard, not a MV velocity standard, and it is not possible to determine whether an ammunition is or is not plus P based solely on that ammunition’s MV.

There is a misconception that ammunition manufactured for military usage is loaded to higher chamber pressures than the corresponding ammunition manufactured for commercial sale. The reality tends to be the reverse, with commercial ammunition having a higher pressure limitation than the corresponding military cartridge. The 9 mm Luger, AKA 9x19 is a good example of this as can be seen by comparing pages 12-3 and 12-5 from the TM, included above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sieger View Post
It seems a bit futile to me to standardize on a caliber while ignoring the performance requirements of same, given the range of weapons designed for its possible usage.
Not really. NATO STANAG was always intended to deal with larger issues than small arms ammunition. And while having true interoperability of ammunition across NATO signatories has always been a goal of the NATO signatories militaries, such interoperability has not been attained and (IMO) likely never will be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sieger View Post
Please cite your sources.
Sieger
Done :-)

Best,

Kyrie
Kyrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2025, Lugerforum.com